Bug#506040: Status of ceph ITP?
Hey Laszlo, On Sat, 4 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 22:02 -0800, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote: [ about OpenSSL license exception for ceph ] I removed all the openssl references in the ceph code and replaced it with crypto++, so hopefully all this discussion is now moot. It's all pushed to the ceph rc branch. Does it mean that I shouldn't upload v0.23.2 [1] to Debian? Wait for the v0.24.0 release and upload that one? I know v0.23.2 is not even noted as a release on the homepage, but tagged in the git tree. Main changes are that debian/source/format is re-added, the tree cleaned as make distclean, backported cephfs.8 manpage as a patch, pristine clean the source, noted myself as maintainer while Sage remains as an uploader. Yeah, let's just wait for 0.24. BTW, I made radosacl only build --with-debug; it can be dropped from the package. Thanks- sage Laszlo/GCS Ps: Please delete parts of the email that not relevant to the conversation. [1] dget http://www.routers.hu/gcs/ceph_0.23.2-1.dsc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe ceph-devel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1012042108030.28...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: Status of ceph ITP?
Hi Laszlo, On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: Hi Sage, On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 10:21 -0800, Sage Weil wrote: Great! There are a handful of bug fixes I'd like to roll into v0.23.2 first, if it isn't too much trouble. I can do that today. I've found the manpage problem that I've noted before. It's about monmaptool, the CLI says it's usage: [--print] [--create [--clobber]] [--add name 1.2.3.4:567] [--rm name] mapfilename But the manpage states this as an example: monmaptool --create --add 192.168.0.10:6789 --add 192.168.0.11:6789 --add 192.168.0.12:6789 --clobber monmap This definitely misses 'name' after the 'add' switch, resulting: invalid ip:port '--add' as an error message. Attached patch fixes this inconsistency. Applied, thanks! Clint, do you see any remaining issues I should fix first? Just for the record, I have tested ceph on Ubuntu Maverick. It builds fine and upgrades from the previous version in the archive. Clint is lost somewhere :-( , but I think everything is OK from his side as well. So what if I would step in for being the packager of ceph both in Debian and Ubuntu? Sage can contact me before he makes a release, I adjust the packaging if necessary and he can roll out packages immediately. I recheck them and if they are OK, I make the upload to the archives. All I need is a commit right to the debian/ subdir in the git tree of ceph. Can you take a look at the 'testing' branch in git commit 5bdae2af? That's how I've been doing releases, more or less. Assuming packaging issues are sorted out prior to that point, that's all that should be needed, right? I can also set you up with push access to update the debian/ stuff at your leisure without sending patches over the list. (BTW, the v0.23.2 bugfix release is mostly pointless as v0.24 is just a couple days away anyway. Just for the sake of illustration...) sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1012011010570.29...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: Status of ceph ITP?
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: Hi Sage, On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 10:15 -0800, Sage Weil wrote: Can you take a look at the 'testing' branch in git commit 5bdae2af? That's how I've been doing releases, more or less. Assuming packaging issues are sorted out prior to that point, that's all that should be needed, right? I think I've noted that cephfs and radosacl are without manpages. Please write one for them. Do you have an upstream changelog somewhere? ChangeLog is still empty. Really minor that I write 'new upstream release' to debian/changelog . Otherwise it's OK for uploading. I'm wondering if it's even worth generating a ChangeLog. Maybe only for the release tarball? It's all in git. I guess we can just put the old debian/changelog at ChangeLog and continue summarizing the main items... (BTW, the v0.23.2 bugfix release is mostly pointless as v0.24 is just a couple days away anyway. Just for the sake of illustration...) There's no chance that ceph will be included in Squeeze and the next release of Ubuntu is several months away. You have time and it's your decision when should I first upload ceph. Please note that Debian is in freeze ATM, it may need even two weeks to be accepted to the archive[1]; and even if it's in the NEW queue, I can upload new versions into it. Okay. I'd mainly like to get the packaging issues sorted out so that it's just a matter of updating on each release, and so that sid users can get it. I'm not an ftp-master, but your package maybe rejected[2] for two reasons. I think only debian/copyright is not enough, all source files should have a comment header about their license in short. You have it in cephfs.cc , cfuse.cc , etc; but missing in barclass.cc , cconf.cc , cls_acl.cc and in others. Any chance you want to submit a patch? Unless otherwise noted, everything is LGPL2 and copyright whatever git log tells you. Second is that you link with OpenSSL when your license is (L)GPL. See their FAQ[3] and the fact that I can't find any upstream license file permitting that nor it's mentioned in debian/copyright . Also you may see the debian/copyright of my packages, like neon27[4]: it has a pointer to the full license file under /usr/share/common-licenses/ . On the other hand, it went into Ubuntu without any problems. Clint, Noèl? Feel free to post comment on what needs to be done with ceph packaging to be accepted on the first round. Hmm, yeah, that may be an issue here. See [1] and [2]. Maybe we should look at using gnutls instead of openssl. sage [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/11/msg00253.html [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-le...@lists.debian.org/msg14110.html
Bug#506040: Status of ceph ITP?
Hey Laszlo, These changes are great! I incorporated all of your changes into ceph.git, and also fixed up the ceph.spec.in to include the missed gui files. I've changed the way debug parts of the packages are handled. It may sound harsh and so I'm open to revert that back to your way. Yay, the old way was definitely a hack. Sage: may you let me handle the packaging for Debian and Ubuntu? So you can find more time working on ceph itself as it has some inconsistency as well. Binaries without manpages like cephfs and radosacl ; somewhere the manpage contains an example which is not a valid command (at least in v0.23 , it passed midnight and now I can't remember which one is it). Whatever you think would work best. I would like to keep the debian/ files in some form or another (although whether they live in ceph.git is an open question) since I build packages for sid, squeeze, and lenny for the ceph.newdream.net site, and would like to do so immediately when a release is made. But if you can handle the packaging changes and uploading to debian that would (continue to be) helpful. Or if the packaging stuff is managed by you separately, but still available somewhere for me pull and build my packages against. What do you suggest? Are you sure that ceph should depend on hdparm? What if my box has SCSI, SAS or other disk that isn't [sP]ATA? Yes, there's sdparm, but do you use it directly from ceph? Should it be a recommendation instead? Currently it's only used by os/FileJournal.cc to check for a journal on a block device with write caching off. This is only a problem for kernels prior to 2.6.33 (which unfortunately includes squeeze!), so I'm inclined to keep it for now. In any case, though, the code fails gracefully if it's not found, so a recommendation would work. And yeah, it doesn't try sdparm if hdparm doesn't do the trick. But it catches most administrator error as is, which is the goal. If others agree, I'll upload it in some days. It'll sit into the NEW queue and may take a while to be officially accepted. Great! There are a handful of bug fixes I'd like to roll into v0.23.2 first, if it isn't too much trouble. I can do that today. Clint, do you see any remaining issues I should fix first? Thanks! sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1011300922530.30...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: Status of ceph ITP?
Hi Clint, On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote: Yes we'd much rather have a single package that works in both Debian and Ubuntu. If you know exactly what package is being looked at for upload into Debian, I can at least start with that so that the merge when it finally does get uploaded is much simpler. The current latest is at http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.23.1-1.dsc As I understand it, the current issues are: - whitespace in debian/rules - something with the .install files and installing into the source tree that I didn't understand.. can you clarify Laszlo? Thanks! sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1011291120510.4...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: Status of ceph ITP?
Hi Clint, On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote: Hi guys, I'm about to start working on merging 0.23 into Ubuntu, and I'm just wondering if there has been any progress on adding CEPH to debian before I do so. Whoops, I thought it was uploaded a month or so ago, but checking now it looks like it wasn't. Laszlo was most recently going to do it, but if he doesn't have the bandwidth Noel also offered to. I'm assuming it's simpler to base the ubuntu package off what's in debian? I'd hold off a day or two for that. Thanks! sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1011211521510.17...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: ceph now in Ubuntu
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, Asheesh Laroia wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Sage Weil wrote: Hi Clint, Sorry about the testing confusion.. I was queueing up the little fixes (in the software and the packaging) and just rolled a 0.21.1. The .dsc is at http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21.1-1.dsc Asheesh, can this one get uploaded to debian, too? Hi! I suck at handling email apparently. I hope to have this done within 48 hours. If not, ping me again, and sound very annoyed so I sympathize! (-: Hi Asheesh, Just following up on this! I'm not seeing it in the archive. sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1009282138180.28...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: ceph now in Ubuntu
Hi Asheesh, Good timing. I've just released v0.21.3, which includes a number of bugfixes since v0.21.1: http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21.3-1.dsc Clint, is it too late to get these into 10.10 as well? Thanks! sage On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, Asheesh Laroia wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Sage Weil wrote: Hi Clint, Sorry about the testing confusion.. I was queueing up the little fixes (in the software and the packaging) and just rolled a 0.21.1. The .dsc is at http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21.1-1.dsc Asheesh, can this one get uploaded to debian, too? Hi! I suck at handling email apparently. I hope to have this done within 48 hours. If not, ping me again, and sound very annoyed so I sympathize! (-: -- Asheesh. -- You will be recognized and honored as a community leader. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1009181358350.1...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: ceph now in Ubuntu
Hi Clint, Sorry about the testing confusion.. I was queueing up the little fixes (in the software and the packaging) and just rolled a 0.21.1. The .dsc is at http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21.1-1.dsc Asheesh, can this one get uploaded to debian, too? Let me know if there are any remaining issues. Thanks! sage On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Clint Byrum wrote: Hi Sage, Mathias has uploaded ceph into the universe archive for Ubuntu, meaning it should be present for the 10.10 release in October. It is versioned as 0.21-0ubuntu1, so as soon as 0.21-1 is uploaded to Debian, we will sync/merge it. There was some confusion regarding the official release tarball and the debian packaging it contains, I think a few things didn't make it in to the debian dir from the testing branch of the git repository. I've attached the patch, which we have in our debian/patches dir. It moves mkcephfs to sbin from usr/sbin, which is where the official tarball's install files expect it to be. Thanks for all the help, and looking forward to working together with you as ceph matures! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1008111612310.6...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: Unclear licensing on some files
Okay, v0.21 is out. The .dsc is at http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21-1.dsc Thanks guys! sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1007291305530@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: Unclear licensing on some files
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Clint Byrum wrote: I spoke too soon, I did just now notice these lintian issues, which should probably be resolved: E: ceph source: weak-library-dev-dependency librados1-dev on librados1 E: ceph source: weak-library-dev-dependency libceph1-dev on libceph1 W: ceph source: debhelper-script-needs-versioned-build-depends dh_lintian (= 6.0.7~) W: ceph source: ancient-standards-version 3.7.2 (current is 3.8.4) Fixed these, thanks. I must have an older lintian installed here. E: ceph source: depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version g++ [build-depends: g++] E: ceph source: depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version gcc [build-depends: gcc] I'm not sure what gcc/g++ version I should be specifying here, as I'm not aware of any compiler version specific issues. Is (= 4) sufficient? Thanks! sage On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote: Hi Clint, Asheesh, I am about to finalize a v0.21 release. Do you mind looking at the .dsc below and checking that everything is to your liking? I'd like to fix any packaging issues before tagging the release if possible. http://ceph.newdream.net/testing/0.21/ceph_0.21-1.dsc Thanks! sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1007281558390.14...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: Unclear licensing on some files
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Clint Byrum wrote: I've updated my branch with the latest 0.21 package plus the lintian issues fixed: https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/+junk/ceph-packaging Is it safe to remove the build-depends on g++ and gcc entirely? sage On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote: Hi Clint, Asheesh, I am about to finalize a v0.21 release. Do you mind looking at the .dsc below and checking that everything is to your liking? I'd like to fix any packaging issues before tagging the release if possible. http://ceph.newdream.net/testing/0.21/ceph_0.21-1.dsc Thanks! sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1007281609410.14...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: Unclear licensing on some files
Hi Clint, Asheesh, I am about to finalize a v0.21 release. Do you mind looking at the .dsc below and checking that everything is to your liking? I'd like to fix any packaging issues before tagging the release if possible. http://ceph.newdream.net/testing/0.21/ceph_0.21-1.dsc Thanks! sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1007271444260.15...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: Unclear licensing on some files
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Clint Byrum wrote: Hi Sage, I've been reviewing the package, and I'm almost done. However, there are some issues with the licensing that may prevent it from entering Debian and/or Ubuntu's archive: src/client/fuse.cc has this header: /* * Ceph - scalable distributed file system * * Copyright (C) 2004-2006 Sage Weil s...@newdream.net * * This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public * License version 2.1, as published by the Free Software * Foundation. See file COPYING. * */ /* FUSE: Filesystem in Userspace Copyright (C) 2001-2005 Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu This program can be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. See the file COPYING. */ Since the file was originally under the GPL, I believe it cannot not be re-licensed to the LGPL 2.1 in this way without Miklos assigning copyright to you or granting you special permission to relicense the file. This would actually require the entire client to be re-licensed to the GPL. Hi Clint, I'll just change the license for that file to GPL. The LGPL is used for the rest to allow linking the client side stuff into applications, but that's not important for fuse.cc. (And in any case, fuse.cc is mostly unused... cfuse uses fuse_ll.cc by default.) I'm applying your cleanups to the upstream debian/. A 0.21 release is (I hope) about a week away, and there are a number of changes in the ceph.git unstable branch. Anyway, hopefully we can get that licensing issue cleared up quickly so ceph makes it into the 10.10 release of Ubuntu. What's the timeframe for that? Thanks! sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1007202143050.19...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#589562: ITP: ceph-dkms - ceph client kernel module
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 11:01 -0700, Sage Weil wrote: Package: ceph-dkms Severity: wishlist Owner: Sage Weil s...@newdream.net * Package name: ceph-dkms * URL : http://ceph.newdream.net/ * License : GPL2 Programming Lang: C Description : Ceph client kernel module [DKMS driver source] The Ceph client Linux kernel module allows hosts to natively mount a Ceph file system. This package provides teh kernel modules source with has been prepared for use with DKMS. Will this be the same code that has been accepted upstream? If so, I think we could add it to the linux-2.6 package instead of creating a separate package. It has. The DKMS package is the latest code, though, with backport #ifdefs allowing it to build as far back as 2.6.27. If that's inappropriate for debian, I can just keep those packages on the ceph site only. sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1007192137160.32...@cobra.newdream.net
Bug#506040: Status of uploading user space to debian?
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Clint Byrum wrote: Sage, first off, thanks for producing debian source packages and maintaining your own apt repository. I'm curious if you're involved at all with this debian Intent To Package bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=506040 for ceph. Yes. Well, I have a mentor (Asheesh Laroia) but am also working on getting DM status so I can upload releases myself. I am meeting a DD later this week to get the requisite PGP sig. Also, to all involved with the ITP, I'd really like to see the ceph 0.20 user space tools hit Debian and sync with Ubuntu. The packages that Sage produces upstream appear to meet debian policy requirements (though they could use a little cleaning up). So while the official debian kernel does not support ceph, it seems worthwhile to have the userspace tools in the archive ahead of the kernel. There is also a dkms module in the works. I'm not sure exactly what state it's in at this point (see ceph-client-standalone.git) as I haven't tested it myself, but it would be great if that could hit sid as well! Is there anything preventing the upload? Can I do anything to help with the ITP? sage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1007150857510.26...@cobra.newdream.net
